lax_list_jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' plus the deadline caveat disclose that this is a read-only enumeration that does not surface bid deadlines, which is real behavioral value; however, nothing is said about auth requirements, result ordering, total counts, or pagination behavior beyond the parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat trailing. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the agent gets no picture of what a job record contains, how results are ordered, or how to page reliably. For a list tool with low schema coverage, the description should say more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only restates the three parameter names without adding meaning — no default limit, no note that limit caps at 100, no explanation of what a 'track' value can be. With all schema descriptions absent, the description should compensate and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List registry jobs') plus the optional filters, which is enough to tell it apart from get_job/get_offer siblings that fetch single records. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope limits explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Check bid deadlines separately' hints at a boundary and nudges the agent away from this tool for deadline data, but the alternative is unnamed and there is no explicit when-to-use statement. Usage is implied (enumerate jobs with optional filtering) rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.